tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5103497117777305126..comments2015-09-11T09:51:32.382-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: "Independent Confirmation is Not Necessary to Establish the Mere Existence of the Jesus of the New Testament"Dr. Hector Avaloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65179303660138178902008-12-07T01:46:00.000-05:002008-12-07T01:46:00.000-05:00This whole issue just seems to raise a problem abo...This whole issue just seems to raise a problem about the trustworthiness of history in general for me. Then it would seem to me that it all comes down to probabilities with history. I'm no historian or historical scholar. I suppose as such I don't feel obligated to any of their rules (nor presume their essential importance.) Still I do respect history having an important place in society, so I'm open. <BR/><BR/>As for the Gospels, I've heard before it argued that since they're not legend as many religious legends of the past, actually containing historical details, it should be treated as a historical documents. Shall we also apply this to all novels of HISTORICAL FICTION?? And all legends about historical figures? I just don't accept the logic. <BR/><BR/>Jesus was a popular name. It certainly makes sense that Joshua, the original military hero of the Israelites who lead them in taking the promise land (which they were now in need of retaking), in Greek - Jesus - would be a name associated with messianic concepts. Was there a particular individual behind the Gospels narratives at some point? It's quite possible. What we can actually now is attributable to him from the text? Couldn't tell you. There's also the possibility that he was a figure created to communicate the teachings of a Hellenistic Jewish subculture (the authors of Q) syncretised with Paul's earlier form of Christianity. <BR/><BR/>I'm no fan of being hardcore about any particular interpretation. Though I think we have every reason to believe that as far as the gospels as a whole are concerned, if there was a historical jesus, he probably wasn't THAT GUY :o)<BR/><BR/>Too many better explanations for most of it. This of course follows not only from the details but also my sharing of your "natural-bias."DJ Wilkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07486969163384679137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48799620199834075652008-12-06T10:07:00.000-05:002008-12-06T10:07:00.000-05:00To me the most convincing argument for the existen...To me the most convincing argument for the existence of Jesus is the fact that his enemies acknowledged his existence. John Dominic Crossan has put forward this argument in his "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography" and other writings. The Roman/Jewish historian Josephus notes the existence of 'Christos' who was executed but his following continued. This indicates a single person and fits with the gospel stories. Crossan and other members of the Jesus Seminar have examined the gospel stories in great detail for several decades and have produced some useful analyses.Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13776154226990661079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89317620648322492272008-12-02T20:02:00.000-05:002008-12-02T20:02:00.000-05:00An interesting article which discusses the plethor...An interesting article which discusses the plethora of Jesuses, or Jesi, who lived around this time, which is entitled; 'A Surfeit of Jesuses! – But No Jesus of Nazareth', can be found here.<BR/>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htmDingoDavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18386229762871857788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15036691202450006722008-12-02T19:53:00.000-05:002008-12-02T19:53:00.000-05:00I'm with Hector Avalos and Robert Price on this on...I'm with Hector Avalos and Robert Price on this one.<BR/>I think we need to remain agnostic about this question.<BR/>One interesting thing to ponder though, is that the name 'Jesus', simply means 'Yahweh Saves'.<BR/>The very name itself could be a title, rather than a proper name.<BR/><BR/>Consider the passage in Phillipians chapter 2 which states; "[9] Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, <BR/>[10] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth..."<BR/><BR/>and;<BR/><BR/>Heb.1: [4] having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.<BR/><BR/>This seems to suggest that the name, or title, 'Jesus' was not bestowed upon him until after his resurrection an ascension into Heaven. If this is the case, then perhaps historians and Bible scholars should be looking for a historical figure who is known by another name, who might represent the real historical figure behind the man we now know as the gospel Jesus. Who else living around that time fits the bill?DingoDavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18386229762871857788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68379429763751850482008-12-02T02:07:00.000-05:002008-12-02T02:07:00.000-05:00JOHNI don't understand why Christians would invent...JOHN<BR/>I don't understand why Christians would invent the embarrassing story of a crucified Messiah.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>For Paul the crucifixion was necessary.<BR/><BR/>He preached Christ crucified, while others preached a different Christ.<BR/><BR/>Didn't Daniel 9:26 prophesy that the Messiah would be killed?Steven Carrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87634781483064940162008-12-01T21:07:00.000-05:002008-12-01T21:07:00.000-05:00All I can say Jeff is that you should not decide b...All I can say Jeff is that you should not decide based upon the votes cast here in this thread, for if you were to count votes the huge consensus is on my side, not theirs. This is not a scientific sampling of thoughtful people on the issue. Go with the reasons and the evidence, as I'm sure everyone who has commented here will say. None of us would argue that you should follow the group just because the group says so.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51949991688192556842008-12-01T20:50:00.000-05:002008-12-01T20:50:00.000-05:00I've been watching the discussion on this particul...I've been watching the discussion on this particular point with great enthusiasm. I have recently de-converted from Christianity and am currently trying to work through this issue myself. If I may make one comment to John, I think that your position is a reasonable one to take. It may be false, but it is at the very least reasonable. I also see merit in the mythicists arguments, but I am struggling to find good material by historians who actually refute such a position. I'd like to hear the other side before trying to figure out who's got the better arguments.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, there is one other position, somewhere in the middle of all of this. There are those who claim that the figure of Jesus from the Bible is a composite of several "Jesus figures" from various places that, at some point or another, were merged. Perhaps we have a Jesus who served as a cynic philosopher, and another travelling prophet, etc. If the community that Mark came from had begun to merge these together, it would not be a stretch for him to literalize it into an allegorical account.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, that's all I have to say on the matter. I'm firmly agnostic on the issue until I can figure out exactly what the best argumentation is. I think almost any position you can think of can be reasonable, simply because of the paucity of evidence. It seems almost like trying to prove that the tooth fairy is real, based on some children's accounts...Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07878734919633437792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30569871645282566642008-12-01T13:45:00.000-05:002008-12-01T13:45:00.000-05:00&gt;You realize there was a Santa Claus, right? It...&gt;You realize there was a Santa Claus, right? It was Saint Nicholas of Myra. &lt;<BR/><BR/>John, if you&#39;re going to quote from something as authoritative as Wikipedia, allow me this quote from the same source:<BR/><BR/>&gt; In Greek tradition and according to historical records, St Basil, of Greek heritage, is the original &quot;Santa Claus&quot; &lt;<BR/><BR/>How about this Wiki entry:<BR/><BR/>&gt;The folklore of Saint Nicolas has many parallels with Germanic mythology, in particular with the god Odin.&lt;<BR/><BR/>So, who was the &quot;real&quot; Santa Claus? Nicolas, Basil, Odin? <BR/><BR/>None of these figures from history and legend meet the criteria of charismatic cult figures. But the stories about them meet the need, perhaps unconsciously, for humans to honor sacrifice and altruistic behavior. (And the story of Jesus&#39; resurrection meets the need for humans to believe in redemption.)<BR/><BR/>The stories about gift giving may attach to real people, but as in the case of the god Odin - or Joulupukki in Finland - such stories have grown up around figures about which nothing of substance is known.<BR/><BR/>In addition, there is no way to know if the stories attached to Nicholas or Basil were created at the time of they were alive. Yes, NIcolas and Basil are historical figures. Odin, Joulupukki - and Jesus - are not. <BR/><BR/>There is no reason to think that Jesus was a historical figure, anymore than we should believe Odin or Joulupukki were historical figures. Maybe they were, but there&#39;s no way, at present, to know, one way or the other. <BR/><BR/>By the way, the hallmarks of the many stories about St. Nick (and Basil) are that they gave anonymously. The most famous story about St. Nick is that he gave bags of gold to three sisters otherwise headed for careers in prostitution. <BR/><BR/>It is impossible, by the way, for us to know St. Nick was the gift giver, if he did so, as according to legend, anonymously. In all likelihood, the stories about St. Basil and St. Nick and Odin and our own Santa Claus are apocryphal. All of the stories are blends of legends stretching back into the dim, prehistoric past.Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00637555419320105824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63997251162531842302008-12-01T12:51:00.000-05:002008-12-01T12:51:00.000-05:00John asked good questions. But it seems those ques...John asked good questions. But it seems those questions presuppose that human being are rational being who worry about every detail.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes when you study a crime case, you wonder "why the hell the murderer did or didn't do this, this and that?". The answer is that human beings are often not rational. A better answer is that they don't have the same perspective as we do.<BR/><BR/>For example:<BR/><BR/>"I don't understand why the New Testament authors didn't completely eliminate from the words of Jesus some other embarrasing elements, most notably when he purportedly said, "No one is good but God alone," (Mark 10:17-18) which had to be doctored over in Matthew 19:16 to read "There is only One who is good." (leaving open who that person is)."<BR/><BR/>Who knows? I can think of many reasons. Maybe they interpreted the sentence in such a way that it wasn't embarrassing for them? Maybe they didn't care, for whatever reason? Maybe such details wasn't important for them? I'm not saying it's the case, but it's possible answers.<BR/><BR/>When I look at some Christians today, they seem to care very little about a lot of things. They have faith, and that's it. If Christians in the past had the same nonchalant attitude that some have today, well nothing about the NT is puzzling if Jesus didn't exist.kiwihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05574278615993892853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91734374184032752062008-12-01T12:15:00.000-05:002008-12-01T12:15:00.000-05:00John,I don't understand how a movement like the Je...John,<BR/><BR/><I>I don't understand how a movement like the Jesus cult could be started without a charismatic leader, and unless we dismiss much of the textual evidence because it doesn't fit with our preconceived notions, it was not Paul.</I><BR/><BR/>That's an interesting question. I don't know much about the origin of sects. Did all ancient cults/sects form around a single individual or were some community affairs? How much information do we have today on the origin of ancient sects?<BR/><BR/>Doherty does discuss the origins of the sect and has several articles on his site which expand on his ideas, including this <A HREF="http://humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp07.htm" REL="nofollow">supplemental article</A>. It presupposes a familiarity with his general argument but you may be interested in it anyway. He walks through the evidence and concludes the origin of Christianity can be traced back to a few small groups but he states bluntly "They did not launch the sect." In the end he is left with some scraps of evidence of the originating community but not enough to satisfy anyone that craves definite answers. Is that a failing of his theory or of the poor historical record?Tyrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63597678766314038562008-12-01T10:54:00.000-05:002008-12-01T10:54:00.000-05:00There are a few things about the quest for the his...There are a few things about the quest for the historical Jesus that need an explanation. I grant that historical studies are extremely difficult when it comes to Near Eastern Studies, so agnosticism is a reasonable position. I also grant that there are parallels among pagan myths that have crept into the Gospels. I'm not sure I grant that there was no independent corroboration of the Christian movement though, although there are notable silences. There was certainly a huge debate over who the real Jesus was in the early centuries. And I'm not sure the Gospels are all 2nd century products, since the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52" REL="nofollow">The Rylands Library Papyrus P52</A>, dated between 100- 160 CE, sets the upper limits of the Gospel writings because it contains a small portion of John's Gospel which was written last (even though I known that we don't know what else that manuscript had in it). <BR/><BR/>I don't understand how a movement like the Jesus cult could be started without a charismatic leader, and unless we dismiss much of the textual evidence because it doesn't fit with our preconceived notions, it was not Paul. <BR/><BR/>I don't understand why Christians would invent the embarrassing story of a crucified Messiah.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand why the authors of the New Testament would include the embarrassing apocalyptic elements in it that had to continually be watered down and explained away.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand why the New Testament authors didn't completely eliminate from the words of Jesus some other embarrasing elements, most notably when he purportedly said, "No one is good but God alone," (Mark 10:17-18) which had to be doctored over in Matthew 19:16 to read "There is only One who is good." (leaving open who that person is). <BR/><BR/>Who the historical Jesus was must be figured out from historical analysis of the texts using what we believe is possible based on our control beliefs about how cults arise.<BR/><BR/>I'm now interested more than ever in trying to figure such things out. But I can't as yet throw the baby out with the bathwater until someone can cogently explain to me how the Christian movement originated that is a better explanation than that a charismatic apocalyptic doomsday prophet named Jesus preached his failed doomsday message to the masses.<BR/><BR/>You realize there was a Santa Claus, right? It was <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus" REL="nofollow">Saint Nicholas of Myra</A>. Is that what we're talking about here? Trying to get at the historical core of who Santa Claus was? What does everyone think of this suggestion?<BR/><BR/>These questions are reasonable ones. Perhaps Hector will address them later. I hope so.John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84190710427249394302008-12-01T08:37:00.000-05:002008-12-01T08:37:00.000-05:00Hector, I look forward to your post and I wish you...Hector, I look forward to your post and I wish you well this weekend. Maybe you could report back on the Seminar.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60743822782096857142008-12-01T05:37:00.000-05:002008-12-01T05:37:00.000-05:00Dear colleagues,As you may know, I am a minimalist...Dear colleagues,<BR/>As you may know, I am a minimalist, and I think the best position on the historical Jesus is agnosticism. I hope to provide a longer post in the near future on why this is so.<BR/><BR/> I do think there is nothing illogical about a person named Jesus existing. <BR/><BR/>But after studying many ancient figures, I realize that it is very difficult to tell what is historical from what is not without independent corroboration. I know of many ancient figures who have detailed biographies but who are not regarded as very historical. <BR/><BR/>Whether in ancient or modern times, authors are perfectly able to provide all the historical context you want for characters that are fictional. Historical novels today are built on this very principle of verisimilitude.<BR/><BR/> In terms of historical methodology, accepting things prima facie unless proven otherwise has not yielded very good results once you apply it to the extensive literature of the Near East or even to the Bible. In fact, deciding what is historical from what is not has been one of the greatest failures I know from my experience in biblical and Near Eastern Studies.<BR/><BR/>Independent corroboration is a minimal requirement and that is the reason that we do accept Mao, Darwin, and Kant. There is OVERWHELMING independent corroboration<BR/>for their life and deeds. Jesus has NO independent corroboration from HIS time.<BR/><BR/>For the same reasons, trying to decide that he is an apocalyptic prophet versus some dozen other roles that have been attributed to him is not going to be very helpful. <BR/><BR/>The data for any Jesus all comes from the second century or later. So there is no way to determine what has been added or subtracted from any portrayal of Jesus between ca. 30 CE, when he supposedly worked, and ca. 125-ca. 400 CE (the latter range is the dates of our actual manuscript data).<BR/><BR/>There are at least a dozen Jesuses we could reconstruct given the data. Scholars have been trying for hundreds of years to determine WHICH JESUS is historical, and we still have disagreement precisely because there is no independent corroboration to determine which portrayal is more "historical."Dr. Hector Avaloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29983704458516092962008-12-01T01:33:00.000-05:002008-12-01T01:33:00.000-05:00Wow, I know Jesus is coming back...I NEVER thought...Wow, I know Jesus is coming back...I NEVER thought I'd see the day that atheists would be arguing over the existence of Jesus...<BR/><BR/>I was just kidding...<BR/><BR/>John I appreciate your stance for what it's worth. I know you don't believe in the Jesus of faith BUT I believe as you that the Jesus of history actually existed (of course) now the meaning we pour into that is even different but I believe this is one particular element that has been settled historcally at least with certitude if not certainty. <BR/><BR/>I'll stay out of this one. Thanks.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49883188885378084912008-11-30T23:32:00.000-05:002008-11-30T23:32:00.000-05:001. &gt;Do you respect the rights of an individual ...1. &gt;Do you respect the rights of an individual to live their life and retain a belief that they themselves wish to live by&lt;<BR/><BR/>Depends. I have no respect for those who crash airplanes, based on their religious beliefs, into tall buildings filled with human beings. I have no respect for those who would teach their religious views in a science class.<BR/><BR/>2) &gt;What is your purpose and need for &quot;debunking christianity&quot; and therefore, undermining other individuals&#39; rights&lt;<BR/><BR/>I&#39;m sure everyone has their own reason, but this isn&#39;t a school room where everyone has to tell what they did last summer. Keep reading here, you&#39;ll figure out who things what and why.<BR/><BR/>&gt;I simply wish to understand your purpose. Is it just purely for no end goal and pure &quot;intellectual&quot; debate? If so, may I suggest respectfully, it is a waste of time.&lt;<BR/><BR/>You&#39;re wasting your own time asking such a question.<BR/><BR/>&gt;People will always hold, and have every right to, their own opinions and belief.&lt;<BR/><BR/>Exactly, which is what is happening here.<BR/><BR/>&gt;Neither one of us have the answer and surely not one of us can be so arrogant as to say they KNOW.&lt;<BR/><BR/>Christians can be closed-minded - just keep reading some of the comments here. They claim the know &quot;the answer&quot; and that answer is Jesus, who they believe, with faith rather than evidence, is God, and that he worked a series of miracles a long time ago.<BR/><BR/>Skeptics are open-minded, willing when the evidences points a different direction to change the course of their minds. Without skeptics, we&#39;d probably still be chewing tubers and hunting giraffes on the plains of Africa, we&#39;d think the sun spun around the earth, we&#39;d believe in Adam and Eve. <BR/><BR/>Skeptic are like Iowans - we say &quot;Show me!&quot; The more we learn about the world around us, the less faith we put in religious beliefs like those found in Christianity.<BR/><BR/>You yourself, though, appear to have a closed mind, despite your claim you are a physicist -where, pray tell? <BR/><BR/>&gt;I believe [snip] that, in my own personal view (as a physicist) [snip] there must have been a point of creation and therefore a creator.&lt;<BR/><BR/>Today, physicists talk about string theory, and multiple universes - I&#39;m not aware of a general line of thought physicists have pushed that dovetails with your belief. <BR/><BR/>I think an atheist here might ask you: <BR/><BR/>What is it that makes you think the universe needs a creator? <BR/><BR/>if there must have been a point of creation for the universe which must have been a creator, then why the doesn&#39;t the creator need a creator, too? <BR/><BR/>That is to say, if everything needs a creator, what created the creator? And if the creator - an entity you are incapable of describing, defining or understanding - doesn&#39;t need creation, why would the universe, which in fact we can describe, define and understand.Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00637555419320105824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77969226057590790852008-11-30T22:47:00.000-05:002008-11-30T22:47:00.000-05:00"2. What is your purpose and need for "debunking c...<I>"2. What is your purpose and need for "debunking christianity" and therefore, undermining other individuals' rights and wishes to have faith in that they wish to just as you wish to have faith in that in which you believe?"</I><BR/><BR/>This is probably a job this blog's FAQ, but I thought I'd respond to this instead.<BR/><BR/>Firstly, in defense of this blog, the writers here are not placing their literature in anyone's hotel rooms. Christians are free to, and often do, ignore this site completely.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, if you are perturbed by those publicly admitting they holds different beliefs than others, your next stop is every church, synagogue, mosque, and temple in your local phone book because every faith is an "undermining" of every other, by definition. Atheists are the least of your worries.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, to 'debunk' anything means to examine it critically. I'm astonished at how often I see faith defended as some sort of civil right to abstain from critical examination. Those who defend faith in this manner are admitting that they <B>do not care what is true</B>. One might as well criticize geologists for undermining people's right to believe in flat Earth or ban sex education due to children's right to believe in the Stork.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, for evidence of who is undermining whose rights look no further than to the religious who concern themselves with every civil right of the public at large from the definition of marriage to the right to choose.<BR/><BR/>If it merely came down to people having "faith in that they wish to," what a different, and better, world this would be. Sadly, that does not describe any religion I know.<BR/><BR/>P.S., Jesus didn't exist. ;)openlyatheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03799132607816184980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22142774107354863942008-11-30T22:34:00.000-05:002008-11-30T22:34:00.000-05:00JOHNTo make Romans 10 into what Carr wants to make...JOHN<BR/>To make Romans 10 into what Carr wants to make it is ignorant in my opinion. No doubt he'll ask me to do hours of research to back it up. Instead I call upon him to defend it with some good solid exegesis. To say that someone doesn't know about a historical Jesus because of such language is once again arguing from silence. Such skepticism runs smack into gullibility in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Just personal abuse and no attempt at explanation.<BR/><BR/>And entirely missing the point.<BR/><BR/>The point is that the book he mentioned never even examined things like Romans 10.<BR/><BR/>Historicists simply have not done their homework.<BR/><BR/>They might be right. They might be wrong, but to wave books around which don't even examine why Paul writes what he does is not a refutation of mythicism.<BR/><BR/>It simply reinforces the fact that these things have *not* been examined.Steven Carrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39400387531122874722008-11-30T21:49:00.000-05:002008-11-30T21:49:00.000-05:00Dear kukram,What ways do you spend your life that ...Dear kukram,<BR/><BR/>What ways do you spend your life that you consider "most useful?" Perhaps you are involved with a charity that helps others? That's good. But once people are fed and clothed they also get curious to have discussions.Edward T. Babinskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32246176515348881692008-11-30T20:40:00.000-05:002008-11-30T20:40:00.000-05:00I would respectfully wish to ask all the contribut...I would respectfully wish to ask all the contributors to this site a couple of fundamental questions:<BR/><BR/>1. Do you respect the rights of an individual to live their life and retain a belief that they themselves wish to live by?<BR/><BR/>Assuming and hoping the answer to that is yes, then the major question is this:<BR/><BR/>2. What is your purpose and need for "debunking christianity" and therefore, undermining other individuals' rights and wishes to have faith in that they wish to just as you wish to have faith in that in which you believe.<BR/><BR/>The reason I ask is not that I believe in christianity or any religion (I was brought up Roman Catholic but I basically denounce it) - I am agnostic but cannot say truly aetheist for what I believe to be logical and sound reasoning that, in my own personal view (as a physicist) I feel there must have been a point of creation and therefore a creator.<BR/><BR/>I simply wish to understand your purpose. Is it just purely for no end goal and pure "intellectual" debate? If so, may I suggest respectfully, it is a waste of time. People will always hold, and have every right to, their own opinions and belief. Neither one of us have the answer and surely not one of us can be so arrogant as to say they KNOW.kukramhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08514677609678548670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66049609081932438302008-11-30T19:55:00.000-05:002008-11-30T19:55:00.000-05:00Okay, last week I ordered The Jesus Legend. Anyone...Okay, last week I ordered <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Legend-Historical-Reliability-Tradition/dp/0801031141/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228092430&sr=1-1" REL="nofollow">The Jesus Legend</A>. Anyone opposed to me reading the other side?<BR/><BR/>And I placed the <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/ref=lst_llp_wl-go" REL="nofollow">Jesus Puzzle</A> book on my wish list. Anyone want to buy it for me? On page two of my list is Robert Price's <I>Deconstructing Jesus</I>. Anyone want to buy that for me? I have Price's other book, <I>The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man</I>.<BR/><BR/>I received an email from a skeptic who agrees with me and encouraged me. I am not alone after all. ;-)John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50692369544906359622008-11-30T18:08:00.000-05:002008-11-30T18:08:00.000-05:00Tyro, any minority opinion group says the exact sa...<I>Tyro, any minority opinion group says the exact same thing about the consensus of the scholars by denigrating it, just think young earth creationists.</I><BR/><BR/>Hmmm... The YECs hold their views despite an overwhelming mountain of evidence contradicting their views. From what I see, there is evidence supporting the mythicist position. The YECs throw up long debunked arguments without regard for veracity and then run to new positions when counter-arguments are presented. I haven't seen any of that from mythicists.<BR/><BR/>As tiresome or futile as it may be, evolution supporters marshal evidence to defend their views and tackle opponent's arguments directly but I haven't seen that from any of the historicists.<BR/><BR/>I think a better analogy and one that is less dismissive and insulting would be to compare mythicists with other minority groups like Loop Quantum Gravity supporters (as opposed to String Theorists).<BR/><BR/>I'm not denigrating the consensus opinion, I'm questioning if it is an informed one or a traditional one. If it is informed and if this really is comparable to Evolution/YEC, where is the mountain of evidence to support it?<BR/><BR/><I>You tell me, what would it take for you to consider that Paul never existed. Can't say right?</I><BR/><BR/>I can't say specifically, you're right. But in general I would like to see a theory in which Paul is fictitious that:<BR/>- explains all existing evidence at least as well or better than current theories<BR/>- requires fewer ad hoc explanations than an historical Paul<BR/>- resolves outstanding questions or issues without creating more issues or difficulties<BR/>- answers questions or issues in other texts or disciplines outside of the Pauline writings<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how this theory would look but if this could happen I think we would have to treat it very seriously.<BR/><BR/>To my knowledge, the mythicists do deal with all of the evidence, takes all writing as a whole and with this one simple change in our thinking is able to explain many outstanding issues in the Epistles. In an essay, Carrier said that he attempted to disprove the claim by turning to texts not covered by Doherty and found that the mythicist theory not only held up but was strengthened as more observations were made.<BR/><BR/>Since I'm not qualified to evaluate the evidence directly I'm relying on the opinion of the experts. So far it has been almost entirely one-sided which is why I'm siding with the mythicists. A well-reasoned rebuttal which tackles their arguments head-on could easily convince me to side with the majority only I've yet to see it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Do you know how many views there are that are argued very well but false? I won't bother listing them. And how many of them will you bother researching into when you have the consensus of scholars and your own initial research that suggest they are wrong?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm all too aware that I'm siding with a minority. I will join the majority with no qualm once I see someone defend the consensus using evidence while directly addressing the issues the mythicists raise. Until then I'm in the uncomfortable position of concluding that the majority view is held through tradition rather than reason or evidence. (I don't like this any more than you do.)<BR/><BR/><I>I think the skeptical community is so opposed to miracles they have come up with good arguments to deny the very historicity of the man Jesus. That's going too far, as I've argued. It doesn't need to be.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree, if a Jeusus-myth belief is an attempt to dispel miracle claims it is misguided. I don't see that from Carrier, Doherty or Price though there may be some net residents who feel this way. I would be surprised if kiwi or Carr are amongst them.<BR/><BR/><I>I've given an overall argument for thnking as I do. What possibly am I missing?</I><BR/><BR/>http://humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/home.htm<BR/><BR/>(It contains a link to the full text of his book, not to mention hundreds of pages of text analysing the Epistles.)<BR/><BR/>Richard Carrier has a book review: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html<BR/><BR/>To quote from his introduction:<BR/><BR/><I>The "scandalous" consequence of Doherty's theory is that Jesus didn't exist. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant. Most scholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist (who are called "ahistoricists," because they deny the "historicity" of Jesus, or "mythicists," because they argue Jesus is mythical) have little in the way of reasons beyond a whole complex of arguments from silence. Doherty, in contrast, uses arguments from silence only to support his thesis. He does not base it on such arguments, but rather on positive evidence, especially a slew of very strange facts that his theory accounts for very well but that traditional historicism ignores, or explains poorly. By far most of the criticism or even dismissal of Doherty's work is based on the criticism or dismissal of the Argument from Silence, or his (often supposed) deployment of it. This completely misses the strongest elements of his case: evidence that Christianity did in fact begin as a mystical-revelatory religion.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>I think the last two sentences summarize my reactions to reading supposed defences of the historicist position and it's what I'm looking for in a rebuttal.<BR/><BR/><I>What is the single best book from the skeptical side. </I><BR/><BR/>I wish I knew. I&#39;ve read two of Doherty&#39;s books and most of his website and I&#39;ve read the essays Carrier has published on infidels.org (he&#39;s writing a book on the historicity of Jesus but it isn&#39;t finished yet) but I haven&#39;t read anything by Price and I&#39;ve never heard of Zindler. Perhaps some others can give you better sources, all I can recommend is &quot;The Jesus Puzzle&quot; - the full text is on the site above and there are many supplementary articles and reviews so at least we&#39;d all have access to the same material :)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Frankly I&#39;m in this for the comments &amp; discussion. You guys know so much more than I do that I rely on you to ferret out the best evidence and arguments to defend positions. My contributions are just to occasionally goad people into talking about areas where I have the most to learn. I read and research and try to disprove what I think is true but it&#39;s hard to do this by myself :)Tyrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24326042312214021032008-11-30T16:23:00.000-05:002008-11-30T16:23:00.000-05:00"I don't have the time to deal with so many commen..."I don't have the time to deal with so many comments. I don't feel this is even worthy of further consideration."<BR/><BR/>You're right; it makes very little difference one way or another.<BR/><BR/>That's why I don't see the need to put ancient history data in "true" or "false" boxes. Is there any urgency to do so? Why not just looking at the possible scenarios and acknowledging that the evidence being scant means that there is more than one possible conclusion about some events and people? That's just healthy skepticism to me.<BR/><BR/>The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they use selective data to reach a conclusion, while ignoring the rest of the data. What do MJ proponants ignore? There isn't much to ignore, because the evidence for Jesus is very thin in the first place.<BR/><BR/>As for ID proponants / Young Earth Creationism, I would have no problem with their skepticism of evolution if they would suggest a reasonable alternative to evolution. But they don't. ID has nothing to offer.kiwihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05574278615993892853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91725821729935614282008-11-30T15:39:00.000-05:002008-11-30T15:39:00.000-05:00&gt; But if people can say we vever visited the mo...&gt; But if people can say we vever visited the moon, or that the CIA conspired to blow up the Twin Towers on 9/11 or that the US knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor in advance, then there will even be doubt in the future. THAT&#39;S the nature of historical studies, they are fraught with problems and guided many times by the outlook and control beliefs of the historian.&lt;<BR/><BR/>What historians, though, make such claims? Generally, they don&#39;t. And if they do, so what? Very few people, from any walk of life, who have learned of the Holocaust would deny it happened. Nay-sayers are far and few between, because the documentary evidence about the reality of the Holocaust is so strong.<BR/><BR/>&gt;If we demand independent testimony to corroborate textual testimony we could deny almost anything. It&#39;s demanding too much. It&#39;s too high of a standard.&lt;<BR/><BR/>People DO deny anything and everything - Pearl Harbor, Holocaust, 9/11, evolution itself, and in all these cases there is all sorts of verifiable evidence. <BR/><BR/>So we don&#39;t even need independent testimony, mountains of it, to know that some people will still deny what the rest of us know is true. In fact, a majority of Christians in the U.S. apparently deny the reality of evolution, and believe Jesus was a God. But lots of evidence points to the reality of evolution, and lots of evidence shows Jesus as a god is a myth.<BR/><BR/>You say demanding independent testimony to corroborate - or disprove - textual testimony demands too much, sets too high a standard? You have set your own standard, but there&#39;s no god-given command that anyone else follow your lead. <BR/><BR/>I&#39;m somewhat at a loss to understand your stance. You believe there was a Jesus, based on prima facie evidence - i.e. that it is self-evident from the words themselves in the Bible. Yet you discount the words in which every Christian puts faith that appear in the Bible. To Christians, what the Bible says about Jesus is prima facie evidence to them, too, sufficient to prove Jesus worked miracles. Christians don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything impossible about miraculous events - for them, textual claims of miraculous events in the Bible are prima facie evidence - good enough for them - are proof enough.<BR/><BR/>The reason some people - myself included - doubt (but don&#39;t necessarily deny) the existence of a &quot;real&quot; Jesus, is that much of the Bible is not believable, that much about the Jesus in the Bible who works miracles is clearly an invention of the human mind, and so the authority of what else appears is in the Bible is in question, too.<BR/><BR/>It&#39;s like the boy who cried wolf. No one believed him, even when he told the truth, because his lies tainted his reputation for truthfulness. <BR/><BR/>Beyond that, here is no more reason to reason to believe there was a real Jesus than to believe a real Jesus and St. Germain talked to Guy Ballard in the 1930s. In fact, Ballard published books supposedly written by Jesus. <BR/><BR/>People like Ballard and L. Ron Hubbard (and I&#39;m surprised you don&#39;t know about Scientology, which is a powerful, world-wide cult) founded cults in which they are not the cult leaders. <BR/><BR/>Would those books by Ballard and Hubbard - and Joseph Smith - in the absence of any other evidence, pro or con,be prima facie evidence Jesus existed both as a human and as the man of miracles? Yes, according to your definition of &quot;prima facie&quot; evidence. <BR/><BR/>But we do have evidence, lots of it, pointing the opposite direction about the reality of Jesus. <BR/><BR/>if, in the far future, humans forgot about the Holocaust, and only a single book discussing the Holocaust existed, a book with claimed the Holocaust never happened, that would be prima facie evidence, too - even so, it wouldn&#39;t be true.<BR/><BR/>Just as we have evidence - for now - that proves there was a Holocaust, so too do we now have evidence to cast doubt on the prima facie evidence that the &quot;human&quot; Jesus of the Bible ever existed. <BR/><BR/>We know now, for example, that the stories about Jesus in the NT are NOT contemporaneous accounts of his life and death. (How do we know? Here&#39;s one simple way: some of the &quot;eyewitness&quot; accounts in the Gospels are written in third person, about events at which the authors were not present to see.)<BR/><BR/>- &quot;Evidence&quot; from historians such as Josephus have been shown to be at least suspect.<BR/><BR/>- Archeological evidence is in dispute.<BR/><BR/>Bit by bit by bit the evidence against the Jesus of the Bible having ever lived has been gathered. Is it overwhelming evidence? No, or we wouldn&#39;t be having this discussion. But there is evidence in support of the claim that no real Jesus existed.<BR/><BR/>Nothing is ever completely knowable. You, John, say you are willing to accept, in the absence of competing evidence, nothing more than what&#39;s in the Bible to support your view. Those who think the jury is out have our own evidence - as well as lack of evidence - that makes us think otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Evidence for your position isn&#39;t growing - evidence against your position has grown.Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00637555419320105824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28917043233696833692008-11-30T15:22:00.000-05:002008-11-30T15:22:00.000-05:00Okay, Okay. I'll probably revisit this issue later...Okay, Okay. I'll probably revisit this issue later and put it all together in a single post after reading some more of the literature. Any suggestions? Any links? Where are Carrier's arguments to be found? What is the single best book from the skeptical side. Frank Zindler's book doesn't look good enough given what I argued for in my opening post. One book, maybe two. Give it your best shot.John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66292377844538290872008-11-30T15:08:00.000-05:002008-11-30T15:08:00.000-05:00Tyro, any minority opinion group says the exact sa...Tyro, any minority opinion group says the exact same thing about the consensus of the scholars by denigrating it, just think young earth creationists. <BR/><BR/>You tell me, what would it take for you to consider that Paul never existed. Can't say right?<BR/><BR/>Do you know how many views there are that are argued very well but false? I won't bother listing them. And how many of them will you bother researching into when you have the consensus of scholars and your own initial research that suggest they are wrong? <BR/><BR/>In my book I talk about control beliefs and when I sign it I do so with this phrase: "Control beliefs control." They do. I think the skeptical community is so opposed to miracles they have come up with good arguments to deny the very historicity of the man Jesus. That's going too far, as I've argued. It doesn't need to be. <BR/><BR/>I've given an overall argument for thnking as I do. What possibly am I missing? Skeptics can easily fudge dates and deny Papias and John the Elder and so on and so forth. That's because history can be fudged with. So because it can be fudged with I must look at other things as well, and I do, like the general overall reasons for thinking Jesus existed who was a cult leader. I have every reason to think this about Jesus.John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580noreply@blogger.com